Paul Krugman, an economics professor at Princeton University, who's an avowed liberal, wrote a stunning piece in the New York Times on the 911 Blogpost. Here's the statement that Krugman made:
What happened after 9/11--and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not--was deeply shameful. Te (sic) atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Guiliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
I don't agree with the political philosophy of Paul Krugman, but in examining world events such the horrific events of 9/11, I'm afraid I have to agree that there has been exploitation of 9/11 from our elected elite. I by no means am a Bush hater, but there were many things that transpired under the Bush administration since 9/11 that didn't make sense. For one thing, president Bush should've closed both the northern and southern borders and should've constructed a triple-tiered fence from Texas to California to keep out potential terrorists. President George W. Bush also waged two wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq but didn't win those wars before Barack Obama became president in 2009. Instead, he handed those two wars to President Obama. And President Obama in turn has continued the same war policies that the previous administration began. To go a step further, President Obama has added a third war which is in Libya. Who knows how long the special forces will be in Libya?
Since 9/11 took place over ten years ago, both the Bush and Obama administrations have worked to promote Muslims to high positions within the government. President Bush tried to persuade the American public that Islam is a peaceful religion. It's amazing how sympathetic the Bush administration was toward Islam considering it was Islamists that crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq there were strict rules of engagement in place which made it difficult for our soldiers to effectively fight the "war on terrorism." Some U.S. soldiers were court martialed because they shot Muslims in defense to protect themselves. It's insanity. How come we're fighting a war on terrorism and our military doesn't use the tools necessary to win the war as quickly as possible? That doesn't make sense other than the fact that wars do make money. I believe that the U.S.'s continual presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is part of the globalist agenda. These wars are costing our country in both money and treasure and they both didn't have to linger on like they did. This "war on terrorism" is a joke the way it's being fought. However, all the events that have taken place since 9/11 is part of the globalist agenda to impose a new world order upon us. I also believe the recent uprisings in the Middle East are playing a role in implementing an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East.
I know some blog readers will probably disagree with my assessment on what Krugman said in the New York Times blog, but America is the place for debate. This is a free country and we Americans have the First Amendment right to share our views and agree and disagree. Many politicians have exploited national emergencies to implement some type of agenda. In order to understand a little what I'm talking about, you need to check out the document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." This document stemmed from the project called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The project was established in 1997 and it spokoe about the goals of the neoconservatives to promote American global leadership. They were looking for an excuse for the United States to reassert itself in the world from a military standpoint. They wanted to maintain U.S. preeminence around the world. In order for that to take place, there had to be a "Pearl Harbor" moment. I believe 9/11 was that Pearl Harbor moment. 9/11 wasn't a surprise to those in the highest levels of government. Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism czar in the Bill Clinton administration, warned the Bush administration months prior to 9/11 that Al-Qaeda wanted to launch an attack on the United States. A month prior to 9/11 Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor at the time, was given a CIA briefing that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes. What was done about it? Nothing. There were warnings given within the federal government that an imminent attack was being planned. Even though I don't agree with Krugman on the vast majority of his views, I believe he was correct about what he said concerning our politicians using 9/11 as a pretext to go into a war with Iraq for example. Take a look at how delicate the situation is in Iraq. It's chaotic there. Saddam by all means was a dictator to his people in Iraq. I'm not sure he was as big of a threat as he was made out to be in the Middle East.
Check out the Project for the New American Century to read about the globalist plans for the United States. It was compiled in September 2000. It will explain much about what 9/11 was all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment